England DA

Abstract

This report is intended to support the future opponents of the English women's national team at the EURO 2025 in Switzerland in their match preparations. The goal of this report is to identify the most efficient tactics for breaking down England’s defensive structure during offensive phases. Therefore, our analysis focuses on England’s behavior out of possession and how they attempt to regain the ball. We have conducted an in-depth data analysis for this purpose. When presenting the tactics used by England, our objective has always been to highlight both their strengths and weaknesses in order to optimally prepare the opposition for facing England. This should enable opponents to score as many goals as possible against England while also identifying which ball-possession behaviors are ineffective and play into England’s hands.

Table of Contents

  1. Expected Formation/starting XI
  2. England's strengths & weaknesses
  3. Match tactics in use
  4. Distribution and timing of conceded goals
  5. Summary

Table of contents inspired by own football experience as a player, coach and referee and the following existing report: Bayern Munich 12/13 Opposition Scout Report Link: https://fr.slideshare.net/ukaushik/bayern-munich-1213-opposition-scout-report

Our analysis is based on event data from Wyscout and tracking data from SkillCorner from the following matches:

Matchup Result Date & Time Wyscout ID SkillCorner ID Match Type
England vs. Sweden 1-1 5th April 2024, 19:00 5574528 2002761 Euro Qualifier
England vs. France 1-2 31st May 2024, 19:00 5574545 2002758 Euro Qualifier
France vs. England 2-1 6th June 2024, 19:00 5574550 2002759 Euro Qualifier
England vs. Germany 3-4 25th October 2024, 18:30 5660057 2002803 Friendly Match
England vs. South Africa 2-1 29th October 2024, 19:45 5660058 2002806 Friendly Match
England vs. United States 0-0 30th November 2024, 17:20 5661541 1992759 Friendly Match
England vs. Switzerland 1-0 3rd December 2024, 19:45 5663866 2001353 Friendly Match
Portugal vs. England 1-1 21st February 2025, 19:45 5674978 2004075 Nations League
England vs. Belgium 5-0 4th April 2025, 19:00 5674992 — Nations League
Belgium vs. England 3-2 8th April 2025, 18:30 5675000 — Nations League

To support our work, we used match footage, which is linked at the end of the report. These matches include both Euro 2025 qualifiers as well as Nations League and friendly matches. We wish you the best of success at Euro 2025 with our tools — and hope to see many goals scored against England.

Expected Formation/starting XI

Starting positions

Below we see the starting positions of England for the eight Wyscout matches adjusted such that they fit also the starting positions according to $2009 (from group England AD). The following table also depict the roles corresponding to the colors displayed in the diagram.

Role Group Color Player examples
Central Defender red Russo, Naz
Full Back orange Hemp, Mead, Kelly
Midfield lightblue Walsh, Stanway, Clinton
Wide Attacker yellow Bronze, Carter
Center Forward blue Bright, Williamson
Goal Keeper black Earps, Hampton

output

Match by match interpretation

Match Opponent's shape Englands formation Reasoning
ENG 1-1 SWE 4-2-3-1, mid-block 4-3-3, wingers inside, clustered around center Early in cycle, Wiegman wanted extra creators vs deep block and could risk crowding center.
ENG 1-2 FRA 4-3-3 with high full-backs broad 4-2-3-1 Pull French FBs backward & give Stanway inside-right lane for under-lap
FRA 1-2 ENG same same but with narrow front protect half-spaces, compact rest-defence
ENG 3-4 GER 4-2-3-1 Toone drops to pivot line; Russo still lone 9 Double-pivot to help Walsh beat press; cost is Russo isolation (seen on map)
ENG 2-1 RSA 4-3-3, single pivot 4-3-2-1 Two CF sit on pivot & RCB; no need for wide wingers vs narrow SA block.
ENG 0-0 USA 4-2-3-1 4-2-3-1 England want man-for-man high press; concede flanks they trust to defend 1-v-1.
ENG 1-0 SUI 3-4-1-2 (two strikers, wing-backs) 3-3-2-2; wing-backs George/Le Tissier mirror Swiss WBs Keep spare CB vs front-2, free wing-backs to race high vs Swiss WBs.
POR 1-1 ENG 4-3-3 Back to “default” 4-2-3-1; small twist: Clinton high R-8, Bronze overlaps Opponent sit deeper -> England push extra runner right channel to break block.

Take-aways from data:

  • If you play a lone striker & wide FBs -> 4-2-3-1 stretch
  • If you play two strikers or a 3 back -> 3-3-2-2 mirror
  • If you build through a single pivot -> 4-3-2-1 press

We can see that the most played starting formation is 4-2-3-1 with an occurrence of 57%.

Average starting positions for ball in possession and out of possession

The code snippet used to generate the plots below stems from the Italy DA group. Snippet: $2278 From these plots we can infer knowledge about recurring structural themes and repeated potential vulnerabilities.

England_starting_positions_montage_grass_small

  • In every back-four game Lucy Bronze (or Le Tissier) sits one full horizontal line higher than the left-back.
  • The deepest light-blue dot is Keira Walsh in 7/8 fixtures; she newe crosses halfway.
  • When Germany pressed fiercely the charts show Toone dropping to the same line - the only match with a true double-pivot.

Wingers width vs opponent

Opponent Winger dots Reason
FRA H & POR Almost on touch-line Stretch a back-four that wants to press high.
@FRA & GER ~8 m inside (labelled LF/RF) Protect half-spaces away from home / under pressure.
RSA & USA All four forwards inside width of penalty area (4-2-2-2) Match a single-pivot build-up, press man-to-man.
  1. How England adapts to the opponent
Opponent trait spotted England's visible tweak on the plot Tactical goal
Two strikers + wing-backs (Switzerland) Add 3rd CB & wing-backs → 3-4-2-1 Keep spare man at the back, mirror width.
Lone holding mid (USA, RSA) Narrow 4-2-2-2 front, two CF dots screen pivot Win ball centrally, force play wide.
Aggressive high press (Germany) Second pivot appears, wingers stay high Offer extra build-up outlet without sacrificing width.
Deep mid-block (Portugal) Default 4-2-3-1, Bronze even higher, Clinton advanced 8 Push extra runner into right half-space to break low block.
  1. What this predicts for future matches
  • Bronze space will always be there. No card shows her on the same line as the CBs; prepare diagonal runs behind her.
  • Walsh remains the single point of failure. Only extreme press (GER) or her absence will move a second dot next to her.
  • Box-midfield press appears vs possession teams. If you build with a lone 6, expect England’s four-in-the-centre “square” and plan your double-pivot counter.

England DA - Strengths & Weaknesses

Duel & Challenge Dominance

Code

The analysis for aerial duels has been extracted with snippet $2206, which we have written.

Aerial-Duel Profile

Plots

2._aerial

This chart shows that England's aerial duel success is heavily reliant on a few key players, while others seem to contribute very little. With the time-based cumulative plot, we see a mid-game plateau, which may indicate a phase of less areal control, a potentially exploitable point in time.

Who wins in the air?

England fought 257 first-contact aerials and won 45.1% of them. The spread of players is quite big, and the overall statistics show England being better at ground duels. While the overall rate is decent, there are exploitable gaps in key positions. In the figure above, the players are sorted by aerial duel success rate.

Line Stand-out winners Solid / break-even Below 50%
Back four / back three Lucy Bronze (RB) 23-10 (70%)
Lotte Wubben-Moy (RCB) 4-1 (80%)
Niamh Charles (LB/LWB) 3-1 (75%) 		Millie Bright (RCB) 10-6 (63%) Leah Williamson (CB) 11-15 (42%)
Greenwood (LCB) 3-4 (43%)
Midfield Georgia Stanway (RDMF) 4-3 (57%) — Keira Walsh (LDMF) 3-14 (18%)
Grace Clinton (CMF) 3-9 (25%)
Attack / wide — Beth Mead (RAMF) 6-6 (50%)
J. Carter (RB) 6-6 (50%) 		Alessia Russo (CF) 10-23 (30%)
Lauren Hemp (LWF) 6-11 (35%)
L. James (LAMF) 1-2 (33%)
Toone (AMF) 0-4 (0%)

An example video clip of Bronze defending in an aerial duel:

Bronze Aerial Duel Example Video Clip

Pressure Points

  • Left defensive channel – Greenwood together with a winger who doesn't track high balls (Hemp / James) invites diagonals into x 25–35 m, y 20–45 m. England has only a ~35–45% rate with this combination.
  • Central midfield – Walsh and Clinton are highly ineffective in the air. Goal-kicks and flicks into central midfield often go uncontested.
  • Right side lockdown – Bronze's win count and volume again confirm the danger of her sector.

How to Profit

  1. Launch diagonals at Greenwood
    Station a strong target striker on England's left center-back shoulder and send direct balls from your right-back zone.

  2. Crowd the knock-down
    Stanway aside, England's midfielders are weak aerially. Flood the zone with second-ball chasers.

  3. Avoid Bronze's corridor
    Route crosses and long passes away from the right back zone where Bronze acts, as her volume and efficiency show her dominance.

  4. Use keeper restarts
    Goal-kicks aimed just beyond the center spot force England to defend aerially with midfielders. These are often easy second-ball wins.

Ground-Duel Profile

Code

The analysis for ground duels has been extracted with snippet $2205, which we have written.

Plots

2._ground

This chart shows that England spreads ground duels mor evenly across the squad. Several players have a high-volume with strong win rates. This means that we should avoid players and try to attack in different areas.

Who wins on the ground?

England are strong in ground duels overall, with 1315 total duels and a 70.4% success rate. Specific patterns still offer chances to break through.

Line Stand-out winners Solid Below 60%
Midfield shield B. Mead 75-18 (81%)
Toone 43-14 (75%)
Stanway 56-21 (73%)
Walsh 57-22 (72%) 		Clinton 76-36 (68%) —
Full-backs / wing-backs J. Carter 49-14 (78%)
Bronze 69-24 (74%)
Greenwood 20-7 (74%) 		N. Charles 31-16 (66%) —
Centre-backs Williamson 36-13 (73%) — Bright 31-22 (58%)
Wubben-Moy 7-5 (58%)
Attack L. James 36-11 (77%)
Russo 93-38 (71%)
Beever-Jones 45-16 (74%) 		Hemp 42-22 (66%)
Kelly 26-14 (65%)
Park 49-28 (64%) 		E. Morgan 12-10 (55%)
Blindkilde Brown 10-7 (59%)

Pressure Points

  • Central security – England's midfield trio (Stanway, Walsh, Clinton) accounts for over 180 winning tackles. Duels in zones x 20–35 m, y 35–65 m often end in an England foot.
  • Left wing high – Hemp, Park, and Morgan are sub-66%, which means England are more vulnerable when the ball is turned over on their left.
  • Late-game trend – Unlike previous dips, England's success rate remains high late into the match, though specific players still fail under pressure.

How to Profit

  1. Press the left-side outlet
    Trap England when Hemp or Kelly receives the ball. Double-teams in this zone force low-yield duels.

  2. Send runners beyond Stanway/Walsh
    When bypassing the midfield, quick passing and combinations inside the penalty area can isolate slower defenders.

  3. Avoid Bronze and Mead
    These two have the highest volume and success. Instead, switch diagonally to test Charles, Park, or wide forwards.

  4. Find duel-fatigue late
    While the average doesn't dip, individuals like Bright or Morgan show a drop-off after minute 70. Overload them.

Defensive Risks

Code

The analysis for fouls & dangerous set pieces has been extracted with snippet $2204, which we have written.

Fouls & Dangerous Set Pieces

Plots

2._fouls

England's foul distribution is wide, but clearly concentrated in midfield and defense. The timeline suggests that dangerous fouls spike in the final third of the match, with a few sudden rises rather than a steady curve, pointing to mental lapses under pressure rather than consistent physical overload.

2._cards

Cards accelerate sharply after 60', often clustering in short bursts. The distribution reveals a mix of tactical fouling and frustration fouls, suggesting England can be baited into risky decisions when tempo rises late.

Duels vs Fouls

It is interesting to look into how often players are involved in duels compared to how often they commit fouls, as this highlights who engages frequently but cleanly versus those more prone to infractions.

  • Clinton and Stanway are the foul leaders (10 each), with Clinton also having a yellow card. She's your main bait target.
  • Walsh has 6 fouls, 1 yellow, so moderate volume but folds under pressure.
  • Williamson and Bright (CBs) combine for 12 fouls and 1 card each, showing they are risky.
  • Toone, Kelly, and Bronze show aggressive behavior under fatigue or delay, multiple yellows on few fouls.
  • Mead, Beever-Jones, Russo, Hemp, and Morgan commit light-to-moderate fouls, usually harmless.

Who is most likely to foul?

England commit 84 fouls in our data. They picked up 13 yellow cards, no reds. The total is moderate, with occasional lapses in judgement that create dangerous set pieces. This suggests they walk a fine line, playing aggressively but with moments of poor discipline that can be targeted.

Role line “Enforcers” (most fouls) Low-risk stoppers High card-rate culprits
Midfield G. Clinton 10 / 1 YC
G. Stanway 10 / 0 		Walsh 6 / 1 YC —
Centre-backs M. Bright 7 / 1 YC
Williamson 5 / 0 		Wubben-Moy 1 / 0
Greenwood 1 / 0 		—
Full-backs & wing-backs Bronze 5 / 2 YC (40%) Charles 1 / 0 Carter 4 / 1 YC (25%)
Attack / GK Toone 4 / 2 YC (50%)
Mead 4 / 0 		Russo 1 / 0
Hemp 3 / 0
Hampton 1 / 1 YC 		Kelly 2 / 2 YC (100%)
Park 2 / 1 YC (50%)
Morgan 3 / 1 YC (33%)

Pressure Points

England_FoulHeatMap

A dangerous set piece is defined as any set piece created in a 30 unit radius around the goal, which is marked in the image above with a semi-transparent red half-circle.

The densest foul zone is just outside England's own penalty area, especially central right. Here lie the fouls of defenders like Williamson and bright, that often happen due to late runs or under pressure. A second hotspot is in the left channel, corresponding to fouls from Carter and Clinton. This zone is a great way to overload them and draw out fouls. Noticeably, England seems to commit fewer fouls in the center circle area, suggesting that this area is better defended and has a priority for a clean recovery.

  • Left-back channel – Around x 40-50 m, y 30-40 m, Carter, Williamson and Greenwood are the usual culprits. Two of England's seven yellows arrive here.
  • High right touch-line – In the area around x 10-20 m, y 45-55 m, Bronze, Russo and keeper Hampton foul when the play stalls near England's bench. It seems to often be about protests or tactical infractions.
  • Late-game dip – England's fouls peak between 69'–71' (five fouls, three yellow cards), with another surge just before halftime (44'–46', six fouls, one yellow). These windows offer prime baiting chances.
  • Center holds back - Central fouls are sparse, showing a preference to win the ball cleanly rather than chase. Six of the seven yellow cards cluster in the previously mentioned two hot zones.

It is advised to find a line that provokes fouls of the English team without risking actual injury of your players.

How to Profit

  1. Provoke the left-back lane Dribble at Carter or switch early onto a striker running the inside-left channel. England will likely foul to stop momentum and give you a free cross 18-25 m out.

  2. Over-load England's right late on In the final-quarter game, push wingers to lock Bronze deep.

  3. Accelerate just before the break Quick restarts and vertical passes in the first minutes catch England in their worst discipline and can turn a harmless phase into a set-piece shot.

Defensive Cohesion and Experience

The following diagram is created with snippet $2069, which we have written.

Minutes Played per Match

The "Minutes Played per Match (Average)" visualization shows that England's defenders and midfielders consistently play more minutes than other positions, indicating a relatively stable and experienced defensive core. This continuity may contribute to their ability to handle pressure more effectively than less consistent units.

However, this durability may have a tradeoff: increased fatigue late in matches. These players are substituted less frequently, which may lead to physical decline in the final third of the game—a potential vulnerability for opponents to target.

Tactical Insight: Exploiting Late-Game Fatigue

Statistical patterns from the SkillCorner dataset reveal that:

  • The majority of goals conceded by England occurred in the second half.
  • A higher volume of opposition shots also came in the latter stages of matches.

This supports the hypothesis that England’s defensive performance deteriorates as the match progresses. A viable strategy could involve late substitutions of fast, fresh attacking players to exploit the slower reaction times and reduced mobility of a fatigued English backline.

Analyzing Line Breaking Passes against England

Line Break Ratio by Formation

The following diagram is created with snippet $2452 which we have written.

Line_Break_Ratios An analysis of England’s various defensive formations reveals no consistent correlation between formation choice and the overall frequency of line-breaking passes conceded. While the total number of passes differs significantly from game to game, this appears to reflect the attacking strategies and strengths of England’s opponents rather than structural defensive weaknesses tied to a specific formation.

Through vs. Around Line Break Pass Ratio

The following diagram is created with snippet $2454 which we have written. Through_Around_Ratios

England’s defense was more frequently breached by passes through their lines rather than around them. This trend holds across all defensive layers—first line (press), second line (midfield), and last line (backline)—and across most formations. However, there are exceptions.

The 3-3-2-2 formation, used in the match against Switzerland, showed a unique pattern. It conceded a significantly higher proportion of passes around the last defensive line, possibly due to the dense concentration of players in the second line. This was the only formation where the second line saw a higher Through-vs-Around pass ratio than the last line, indicating that bypassing the wide areas in the final third was particularly effective.

In general, the data suggests that the more players present in a defensive line, the less susceptible it becomes to passes around it. Consequently, understanding the shape of England's formation can inform whether direct vertical penetration (through) or lateral movement (around) is more likely to succeed.

Analyzing line breaks by region

The following Sankey diagrams are created with snippet $2455 which we have written.

Explanation of the Sankey Diagrams

The diagram below illustrates the flow of successful line-breaking passes against England, categorized by

  • the side of the pitch they originated from and where they were received,
  • and which defensive line they breached (first, second last, or last).

The region descriptions (left, right) are based on the view from the attacking team i.e. the team playing against England.

The number next to a bar indicates the number of successful line breaking passes that originated (left bar) or were received (right bar) in that region. E.g. for the game 1992759 against the USA, 13 passes that broke the last line originated in the Wide Left region, and 15 passes were received in the Wide Left region which broke the last line

line_break_sankey_1992759_vs_USA

line_break_sankey_2001353_vs_Switzerland

line_break_sankey_2002758_vs_France

line_break_sankey_2002759_vs_France

line_break_sankey_2002761_vs_Sweden

line_break_sankey_2002803_vs_Germany

line_break_sankey_2002806_vs_South_Africa

Analysis of line breaking passes

The SkillCorner data splits the pitch into three areas width-wise: Wide Left, Half Space Left, Middle, Half Space Right, Wide Right.

Line-breaking passes typically originate and terminate in the same zone, with very few extending into adjacent zones and even fewer successfully reaching across multiple zones.

Generally, England is most vulnerable in the central and right channels when it comes to breaking the last line. This was especially evident in game 2000278 against France, where nearly 50% of successful last-line breaking passes occurred in the Wide Right zone.

In contrast, during game 2001353 against Switzerland, where England employed the 3-3-2-2, successful last-line breaches occurred predominantly in the Wide Left and Wide Right areas. This suggests that flank vulnerability increases in wider formations, and defending those zones becomes critical when using systems with fewer players in the last line’s central zones.

Interestingly, the percentage of successful line breaking passes in a certain region stays relatively constant across the first, second last and last line. This can indicate that successful attacks are best started by deciding which region to attack and then trying to break the lines in that region.

Tactical Recommendations

  1. Exploit Late-Game Fatigue

    • Introduce fast, dynamic attackers around the 60–70 minute mark to capitalize on England's physical decline.
    • Push the pace in the final 10 minutes of each half to capitalize on discipline lapses and draw dangerous fouls.
    • Target defenders with the highest average minutes played to force 1v1 situations or draw fouls.

  2. Target Central and Right Channels & Ground Duels

    • Focus attacking play through the central and right side of the field, where England has shown consistent vulnerability in breaking the last defensive line.
    • Exploit declining duel success from players like Bright and Morgan on England’s left in the latter stages of the game.
    • Isolate these players 1v1 to force errors or win free kicks.

  3. Use Vertical Penetration (Through Passes)

    • Design attacking patterns that prioritize vertical through balls over lateral build-up, as England is more often breached through the lines rather than around them.

  4. Flank Overloads vs. 3-3-2-2 Formation

    • When England employs wider formations like 3-3-2-2, create overloads in the wide areas to exploit increased space and isolation of wing-backs.

  5. Zonal Consistency in Attacks

    • Build offensive plays that maintain progression within the same pitch zone to increase the likelihood of successful line-breaking passes.

  6. Structure Attacks for Second Ball Recovery

    • Use long passes and aerial challenges to create loose balls in England’s vulnerable zones.
    • Position midfielders for aggressive second-ball recovery in central and left-sided areas.

Conclusion

England's defense is strong in ground duels but fragile in the air, especially on the left and in midfield. Their aerial control depends on a few players, while others like Greenwood, Walsh, and Russo are consistently beaten. Ground duels are more balanced, but left-side players drop below 66%, and some, like Bright and Morgan, fade late.

They foul most in the left-back lane and just outside their own box, with discipline slipping before halftime and around the 70-minute mark. Bronze is a defensive anchor and should be avoided, Mead also dominates in duels. In contrast, Walsh, Clinton, and Carter are weak under pressure and foul-prone.

England's defense benefits from strong cohesion and experience, with defenders and midfielders logging consistently high minutes. This stability enhances their ability to handle pressure, but also leads to fatigue in the latter stages, as reflected in higher goal concessions and opposition shot volume in the second half.

In terms of line-breaking vulnerabilities, England is more often breached through their defensive lines rather than around them, across all formations. Notably, the 3-3-2-2 formation creates flank vulnerabilities, particularly around the last line, as seen in the match against Switzerland.

Spatial analysis shows that line-breaking passes typically stay within the same pitch zone, and central and right channels are England's most exposed areas, especially in games like the one against France. This suggests that attacking strategies should focus on specific zones throughout the entire build-up of play.

Match Tactics in Use

Pressing

  • DISCLAIMER: I played competitive football in the German-speaking part of Switzerland for ten years. I am now a referee and have also coached a team. Because of this background, my football language is very precise in German, and I am familiar with many technical terms. However, this is not the case in English. Because of that ChatGPT has been used for translation of key words and phrases from German to English to create a more professional language.

Pressing Behavior

Our pressing analysis starts with a look at all matches in general, and then dives deeper into specific games to see how England’s pressing changes depending on the opponent.

Pressing - The Theory

Football has become a much faster and more dynamic sport over the years. Today, the pace of play is way quicker than it was in the 1970s. Players now have a lot less time to build up their plays. The idea behind pressing is that defending already starts up front - it’s all about applying pressure early. Pressing is the key concept here. The goal is to put pressure on the opponent far away from your own penalty box and prevent them from building up their game in a controlled way.

When pressing (also known as forechecking), the attackers and attacking midfielders put early pressure on the opposing defenders and defensive midfielders. The idea is not to sit back, but to actively approach the player with the ball and force them into making a mistake. The aim is to win the ball back and push the opponent back.

If weaknesses in the opposing team become clear during the match, pressure can also be increased specifically on certain players. But pressing only works if the entire team is working together against the ball. If not, the pressing player ends up opening a gap in the formation.

sources:

Overview of the Plots

The following graphics show how pressure is applied to players on the ball. The type of pressing depends on which third of the pitch it’s happening in:

  • Low pressing (“low block” or defensive pressing) happens in the defensive third
  • Midfield pressing takes place in the central third
  • High pressing is used in the attacking third - it uses the most energy and comes with some risk, since the defensive line pushes up. But it also makes it harder for the opponent to build up their play.

Pressing is considered successful when the ball is recovered or the opponent is forced to retreat. For example, when they pass backwards or England kicks the ball out of play.

In addition to looking at pressing by the standard 9 pitch zones, we wanted to go deeper into spatial detail. That’s where the 4 hexagon maps come in. They show where the pressing events happened and what followed after each one.

Lastly, we looked at how pressing activity changed throughout the match, to spot strong or weak phases, and to see whether England’s pressing behavior is adjusted to their endurance levels over time.

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2456

wyscout_pitch_thirds_left_center_right

Pressing Events by Pitch Zone

zone_pressing_combined

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2457

Pressing Events by Pitch Zone for Each Match

England vs. Sweden (5th April 2024)

zone_pressing_5574528

England vs. France (31st May 2024)

zone_pressing_5574545

England vs. France (6th June 2024)

zone_pressing_5574550

England vs. Germany (25th October 2024)

zone_pressing_5660057

England vs. South Africa (29th October 2024)

zone_pressing_5660058

England vs. United States (30th November 2024)

zone_pressing_5661541

England vs. Switzerland (3rd December 2024)

zone_pressing_5663866

England vs. Portugal (21st February 2025)

zone_pressing_5674978

** England vs. Belgium (4th April 2025)**

zone_pressing_5674992

England vs. Belgium (8th April 2025)

zone_pressing_5675000

The English team uses all three pressing types effectively. Their pressing success rate is over 50% in all 9 zones, which makes them a serious threat to any opponent. Pressing is clearly a key part of England’s match strategy and it’s working really well for them.

Since losing the ball deep in your own half is especially dangerous, it’s worth taking a closer look at the offensive third. In that final third, England’s pressing focuses heavily on the wings, with a ball recovery rate of 40% on the left and 31% on the right. Pressing out wide tends to be more effective, because there’s less space and the sideline acts like an extra defender. Additionally, opponents have fewer passing options and are more likely to make mistakes: making it easier to win the ball back and launch counterattacks.

The lowest pressing success rate across all matches is in the center of the attacking third, at 57%. Which also happens to be the zone with the fewest pressing actions (under 50). Pressing in this central zone is harder and less frequent because opponents tend to play it safe there. They also have more passing options and aren’t as limited by the sideline.

One of England’s strongest pressing zones is the left side of the middle third, where they win around 4 out of 5 pressing duels. Across all matches, that’s where they press the most, with over 200 pressing events, by far the highest count. This is largely due to Keira Walsh’s strength in duels (see Ground Duels analysis).

The highest success rate is in the defensive third, right in the center, with about 9 out of 10 pressing duels won and a ball recovery rate of 76%. This comes down to the strong tackling ability of England’s center-backs, like Williamson and Greenwood (again, see Ground Duels). It shows that England knows its physical strengths and that they make full use of them in their tactical approach.

Match-Specific Insight

England’s pressing behavior shows that they adapt to each opponent, by adjusting to the other team’s strengths and weaknesses. For example, in the first leg against France on May 31, 2024, England focused their pressing mostly on the left central zone.

According to the France AD analysis, the French team builds a lot of its attacks through the wings. In that match, K. Diani (RM) and D. Cascarino (RW) played on France’s right side. Based on the France PS report, both are key players in France’s offense:

  • Diani is a versatile winger who was used more centrally in midfield here.
  • Cascarino is known for her creativity, dribbling, and chance creation on the wing.

These two players were seen as major threats. So, England pressured heavily and frequently in that area to shut them down early and stop dangerous attacks from developing. When England got into pressing duels on their left wing, they did it with a 90% success rate.

In the second leg, Cascarino was benched, and Diani moved out wide to the right. As a result, the number of pressing events on England’s Midfields left side was noticeably lower. However, low pressing on that left side doubled from 14 events in the first leg to 32 in the second.

This shows once again that England adapted their tactics based on the opponent - doing everything they could to limit Diani’s influence on the game.

Video Pressing Tactic England vs. France Minute 64:05-64:22

High Pressing

Except for the game against South Africa, England doesn’t rely heavily on high pressing. Their best pressing success rates came against Belgium. However, pressing in the attacking third happens much less often than in the middle third. This lines up with the average height of England’s defensive line across all matches, which sits still before the halfway line at 41.9m.

Against South Africa, England tried to take advantage of their opponent’s weakness in the build-up phase. But this approach cost them a lot of energy, and in both the central and right attacking zones, over half of the pressing duels were lost.

Compared to the middle zone, England’s pressing in the final third is more limited and clearly less effective. The match against South Africa on October 29 shows this well. In that game, England applied by far the most pressure in the attacking third compared to all other matches. But the success rate was pretty low: in the central attacking (high) zone, they lost 66% of duels, and on the right side of the attacking zone, they lost 54%.

It’s clear that England adjusts their pressing behavior a lot depending on the opponent and their specific weaknesses.

Hexagon Pressing Maps

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2460

Hexagon Pressing Maps for Each Match

England vs. Sweden (5th April 2024)

England vs. France (31st May 2024)

England vs. France (6th June 2024)

England vs. Germany (25th October 2024)

England vs. South Africa (29th October 2024)

England vs. United States (30th November 2024)

England vs. Switzerland (3rd December 2024)

England vs. Portugal (21st February 2025)

** England vs. Belgium (4th April 2025)**

England vs. Belgium (8th April 2025)

Most of the pressing events happen in England’s own penalty box and out on the left and right wings. In the central midfield, there are far fewer, but in some areas, none at all. The penalty box is where expected goals (xG) are highest when shots happen, so it makes sense that England applies a lot of pressure there. What’s interesting is that they’re very successful in that zone. In fact, England has by far the highest ball recovery rate in their own box compared to the rest of the pitch. That’s thanks to the strong tackling abilities of their center-backs — especially Leah Williamson, who played in 7 of the 8 matches and won 73% of her ground duels.

The hexagon maps also clearly show the asymmetry between the left and right sides of midfield. There are significantly more pressing attempts on the left side of the pitch. When you look at the individual games, most show only slight asymmetry, but the match against France on May 31 is an exception. In that game, the difference between left and right is very noticeable. As mentioned earlier, that’s because England focused their pressing on key players like Kadidiatou Diani and Delphine Cascarino. The darkest hexagons (where most pressing happened) are on the edge of the box and just before the halfway line.

This suggests two things:

  1. England tried to prevent players from entering the box - where pressing is risky because it might lead to a foul and possibly a penalty.
  2. They focused pressure at the edge of the box to reduce chances with high xG - as shown in the “xG-Weighted Shot Map” from the Distribution and Timing of Goals graphic.

However, it’s important to note that this pattern is specific to the May 31 game against France. In the map that includes all matches, this kind of pressing near the edge of the box is much less common.

There’s also the question: Why are there so many pressing events out wide near the halfway line? That’s where teams usually have their fastest players. When those players pick up speed and run at a defense, they’re tough to stop. So it makes sense that England tries to press them early, before they get going. As mentioned earlier, pressing near the touchline is especially effective because the sideline acts like an extra defender.

Looking at the green, blue, and orange hexagon maps, another pattern becomes clear: England loses more pressing duels on the right side of the pitch. Also, the number of unsuccessful pressings is much higher in the opponent’s half than in their own. That tells us that England is generally better at low-block and midfield pressing than high pressing.

Lastly, ball recoveries are higher on the left side of the pitch compared to the right.

One more thing to keep in mind with pressing: the team’s stamina, including substitutes, has to last for a full 90 minutes. Pressing only works if energy levels don’t drop off as the game goes on.

Pressing Activity Over the Course of a Match

England_pressing_over_time_combined

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2473

Pressing Events over Time for Each Match

England_pressing_over_time_5574528

England_pressing_over_time_5574545

England_pressing_over_time_5574550

England_pressing_over_time_5660057

England_pressing_over_time_5660058

England_pressing_over_time_5661541

England_pressing_over_time_5663866

England_pressing_over_time_5674978

England_pressing_over_time_5674992

England_pressing_over_time_5675000

When looking at England’s pressing activity over the course of a match, you can see that the number of pressings per minute stays pretty consistent on average. The highest intensity happens right before and after halftime, that’s when England puts the most pressure on their opponents.

After the break, the average number of pressings per minute drops slightly, and there are two noticeable low points: between minutes 55–60 and again just before the final whistle. This suggests that England’s pressing is generally well adapted to their physical stamina, although the pressure does seem to drop off a bit in the second half.

When taking a closer look at individual matches, you’ll notice that pressing activity doesn’t always react to goals, meaning England doesn’t necessarily press more or less after scoring. However, most goals conceded happen during phases when pressing activity is low.

So, overall, you could say that England uses pressing as an effective defensive tool, but they do have occasional drop-offs in intensity, which can make them vulnerable.

Final Pressing Summary

England’s women’s team uses pressing efficiently to win the ball early and disrupt the opponent’s build-up play. This leads to more chances created from better field positioning and higher possession.

  • England’s pressing works best when opponents hold on to the ball for too long, giving England time to apply pressure as a unit.
  • The highest pressing success rates are in the central defensive third (up to 90%) and on the left wing (up to 80%), thanks to strong tackling. The left side is England’s dominant pressing side, both in quantity and quality.
  • In the central midfield and the central attacking third, England’s pressing is noticeably weaker compared to the wings.
  • High pressing is used selectively, mostly against weaker teams, but with a lower success rate.
  • Pressing activity stays stable throughout the match, with peaks before and after halftime. A drop-off is noticeable after the 55th minute.
  • The intensity varies a bit during the game: it’s strongest just before and after halftime, and weaker in the second half, especially around the 55th minute and in stoppage time.
  • England’s pressing is flexible and adapts to the opponent, player profiles, and match situations. It’s often used strategically to shut down key players on the other team.
  • Besides pressing based on player positions, England also pressures opponents when they receive the ball with their back to goal and can’t see the pressure coming. This was observed several times in the full match videos, though it can’t be confirmed with data - but the following video shows it clearly.

Video Pressing Tactic England vs. France Minute 64:05-64:22

Final Opposition Pressing Recommendations

Use quick short–long passing combinations and keep individual ball touches short to bypass England’s pressing lines quickly, don’t give them any chance to engage in pressing duels.

  • If you look at pressing alone, the central midfield is the best area to attack through, but this requires technically strong midfielders.
  • If you go for wing attacks, prefer your own left side (England’s right).
  • Inside the opponent’s box, you should get shots off quickly.
  • Wingers should switch sides every few minutes, because this makes it harder for England to apply player-specific pressing.
  • Exploit England’s weak phases between minutes 55–60 and in stoppage time by increasing attacking pressure and making substitutions just before those moments.
  • Plan substitutions early to keep up with England’s consistently high pressing intensity.

The video below shows how England’s pressing can be broken:

Video Pressing Tactic England vs. Belgium Minute 02:55-03:10

If the ball is played quickly and directly, it’s possible to break through zones where England is normally strongest. With fast short–long passing, England doesn’t even get a chance to engage in duels. If you want to hold up against England’s press, don’t just avoid their strengths - stick confidently to your own game plan with structured buildup and solid technique.

Defensive Line Height and Risk Analysis

England’s willingness to take risks is closely tied to the height of their defensive line. That’s why we take a closer look at it in the following section.

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2368

average_defensive_lines_by_team_on_pitch_fixed

The graphic shows that a team’s strength often correlates with how high they keep their defensive line. In general, teams hold a higher line when in possession compared to when they’re defending. Top teams like Spain and France have the highest average line and also take on the most risk. It’s also important to factor in the sprint speed of the players. Against faster attackers, teams usually defend deeper in their own half. If the opposing atackers are slower than your defensive back line, you can afford to push higher. A fast attacker like Diani, for example, can completely change how high a team dares to defend.

England’s defense isn’t particularly known for its sprint speed. Experienced players like Lucy Bronze have other strengths, and even Leah Williamson isn’t considered one of the fastest center-backs at the international level. That’s why it makes sense that England tends to hold a slightly deeper and more cautious line compared to a team like Spain. With an average line height of 41.9 meters, England sits in the upper midfield range among tournament favorites, which fits well when you consider these factors across all teams.

Besides comparing defensive line height across nations, we also wanted to take a closer look at how it varies between England’s individual matches.

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2478

defensive_line_mean_and_standard_deviation_with_result

The graphic shows that England tends to defend with a higher line against teams that are weaker on the ball, like South Africa or Switzerland, compared to more evenly matched opponents. A particularly interesting case is the two matches against France. In the first leg, which England lost 2-1, they played on average 3.5 meters higher up the pitch than in the second leg, where they won 2-1. Based on that, you might expect fewer pressing actions in the second match, but that wasn’t the case. In the first game, England recorded 112 pressing actions, while in the second game, despite the higher line, the number actually increased to 146.

This shows that a higher defensive line doesn’t automatically result in more pressing situations. Both high and low defensive setups can be successful, depending on how well the team executes them. That said, teams with stronger technical ability do tend to defend higher than those who are less dominant on the ball.

Defensive Line Chart Over Time

As next, we looked at how the average height of England’s defensive line changes throughout matches. Overall, it stays pretty close to the average of 41.9 meters, with only slight variations. England tends to start games a bit deeper in their own half, then gradually pushes up throughout the first half, before the line drops slightly just before halftime. In the second half, there’s a small upward trend again.

A closer look at a few matches:

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2477

5574528_defensive_line_chart

In the game against Sweden, England dropped a little back after scoring. After Sweden brought the score back to 1–1, England responded by pushing higher and taking more risks. However, the higher positioning didn’t lead to a winning goal.

5574545_defensive_line_chart

5574550_defensive_line_chart

Against the strong French team with fast players like Diani, England tended to start a bit more defensively across both games. In the first match, they tried to push higher up the pitch after conceding a second goal, but it didn’t lead to another goal for them. In the second match, England dropped back after scoring, and France managed to score shortly after.

Defensive Line Chart for every Match

england_accumulated_defensive_line_chart

5574528_defensive_line_chart

5574545_defensive_line_chart

5574550_defensive_line_chart

5660057_defensive_line_chart

5660058_defensive_line_chart

5661541_defensive_line_chart

5663866_defensive_line_chart

5674978_defensive_line_chart

Defensive Line Histogram

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2470

england_all_matches_defensive_line_histogram

With these histograms, we wanted to find out where England’s defensive line usually sits and how much it varies across the pitch. Looking at all matches, England mostly defends just behind the halfway line. So they actually play a bit more aggressively than the average suggests.

Defensive Line Histogram for every Match

In SkillCorner data a frame is a single snapshot every 10 miliseconds that captures tracking data like positions of all players and the ball on the pitch at that specific moment, which results around 57'000 frames a game.

5574528_defensive_line_histogram

5574545_defensive_line_histogram

5574550_defensive_line_histogram

5660057_defensive_line_histogram

5660058_defensive_line_histogram

5661541_defensive_line_histogram

5663866_defensive_line_histogram

5674978_defensive_line_histogram

The game against the USA is especially interesting. In that match, England either defended near the halfway line or very close to their own box. There are barely any values in between. That suggests they might also use a low block tactic at times, meaning they stay really compact and defend deep. It shows that Sarina Wiegman adjusts her team quite differently depending on the opponent.

Conclusion: England’s Defensive Risk and Line Height

  • Flexible risk-taking: England adjusts the height of their defensive line depending on the opponent and how the match is going. They push higher against weaker teams and stay more defensive against stronger ones like France or the USA.
  • Top-Speed limits risk: Because players like Williamson and Bronze aren’t known for their sprint speed, England avoids pushing the line too high, which helps keep their defensive shape stable.
  • It depends on the opponent: When facing fast attackers like Diani, England tends to sit deeper to protect against counterattacks. This shows a smart and cautious approach.
  • Line height doesn’t mean more pressing: A higher defensive line doesn’t always lead to more pressing. In the two matches against France, England showed that pressing and line height don’t always go hand in hand.
  • High Tactical flexibility: Position data shows that England doesn’t stick to one fixed style. They used a low block against a strong team like the USA and a higher line against a weaker side like Switzerland. This shows that their strategy is well thought out and adjusts based on the situation.

Successful Defensive Duels over all games

To give opponents a recommendation on which part of the pitch to attack, we analysed the won defensive duels and on which part of the pitch’s y-axis they occurred. We differentiated between ball recoveries and stopped progress. The following terms were used to describe the position on the y-axis from the opponent’s perspective: Wide Left, Half-Space Left, Centre, Half-Space Right, and Wide Right.

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2479

duels_y_histogram_ball_recovery

duels_y_histogram_stopped_progress

The English team recovers more balls on the Wide Right side than on the Wide Left. They also stop the most progress there. In the Centre, they appear to win the fewest defensive duels. As a result, if we only look at the successful duels, the opponent should attack the English team through the Centre. When it comes to wing attacks, the left wing appears to offer slightly more opportunities for success.

In the conclusion at the end, we examine whether this recommendation also holds true from a more general perspective, involving other important aspects.

Compactness

Optimal compactness in football means that players position themselves close enough to act as a unit, while maintaining the greatest possible distance between each other to effectively control space. This strengthens the defensive block, makes it harder to penetrate, and minimizes the opponent’s playing space. In central areas minimizing opponent’s playing space is especially important. Compactness always adapts to the specific game situation and the position of the opponent.

Theory of Compactness (Detailed Explanation)

The definition of compactness says that the distance between the players who are furthest apart (both horizontally and vertically) should be kept as small as possible. However, this definition is not practical when applied to real match situations. The idea of optimal compactness in football gives a more useful answer that fits the game. Compactness exists on an individual level when players are positioned close enough together to act as a unit and have the maximum number of connections between each other. The distance between them should be as large as possible without losing this connection. This allows the team to control space effectively while keeping the benefits of a compact defensive block. It makes the block more stable and harder to break through. In an uncompact defensive block, these connections are missing. Players are too far apart, which makes it easier for the opponent to play passes into dangerous areas. This often creates structural problems, especially in central areas. The opponent can also create overloads and use central spaces or switch the ball to the weaker side more easily. From the opponent’s point of view, the available space should be minimized. That means the optimal compactness also depends on the opponent’s positioning. The goal is to control space, especially in key areas like the centre. To do this, teams often give up control of less important areas like the wings. The reason for that is that crosses usually lead to fewer dangerous chances than attacks through the centre. Applied to real game situations, compactness has several advantages:

  • Better pressure on the player in possession, since more teammates are close to the ball.
  • Shorter distances allow for quicker support and a more stable defensive block.
  • Avoiding situations where the team is outnumbered.
  • Hiding individual weaknesses by balancing space and supporting weaker players.
  • Reducing the opponent’s options and limiting the space they can use.
  • Making through passes harder, since the passing lanes are smaller.

source: https://spielverlagerung.com/2015/05/08/tactical-theory-compactness/

Distance between the Defensive and the Midfield line

When it comes to analysing the compactness with the data, our first idea was to measure the distance between the defensive line and the midfield line. To find out if they work as a team and if the distances between them are not too long.

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2582

England vs. Sweden (5th April 2024)

compactness_def_mid_together_5574528

compactness_def_mid_difference_5574528

Compactness Defensive and Midfield Line Plot for every Match

England vs. France (31st May 2024)

compactness_def_mid_together_5574545

compactness_def_mid_difference_5574545

England vs. France (6th June 2024)

compactness_def_mid_together_5574550

compactness_def_mid_difference_5574550

England vs. Germany (25th October 2024)

compactness_def_mid_together_5660057

compactness_def_mid_difference_5660057

England vs. South Africa (29th October 2024)

compactness_def_mid_together_5660058

compactness_def_mid_difference_5660058

England vs. United States (30th November 2024)

compactness_def_mid_together_5661541

compactness_def_mid_difference_5661541

England vs. Switzerland (3rd December 2024)

compactness_def_mid_together_5663866

compactness_def_mid_difference_5663866

England vs. Portugal (21st February 2025)

compactness_def_mid_together_5674978

compactness_def_mid_difference_5674978

The average distance between the two lines across all matches is between 8.8 and 13.5 meters. When the distance reaches 13.5 meters, it becomes hard to speak of a real connection between the lines. Especially close to the penalty area, players are limited in how much they can support each other when the gaps are that large. An opponent positioned between the lines would still be around 6.75 meters away from the nearest defender, which is quite far. It’s also noticeable that the distances between the defensive and the midfield line are the smallest when the team is either pushing forward or dropping back into their own half. So, during these transition phases, England’s structure is at its weakest. A team that has time to move together as a unit is much harder to break down than one that has to react to unexpected attacks like counterattacks or quick switches of play.

Conclusion and Recommendation:

  • This weakness can be used to build an effective attacking strategy against England. If long distances on the x-axis of the pitch are covered quickly, England becomes vulnerable.
  • One possible effective approach is a direct short-long passing combination. A longer pass is played forward to a striker, who then lays the ball off short to a teammate arriving from behind. This not only creates a surprise moment but also covers a lot of ground toward the opponent’s goal. Unlike slow lateral ball movement, which is easier for a defensive unit to react to, this strategy can break through England’s compact shape and open up gaps between the lines.
  • These gaps can be used effectively, especially considering that players like Lucy Bronze or Leah Williamson are not the quickest to react. A strong striker who can hold off defenders even under pressure would be useful for this style of play.
  • However, playing like this requires good technical quality in your own team.

Convex Hull & Voronoi Diagrams

Besides the distance between the defensive and midfield lines, we also wanted to take a closer look at how compact England is positioned during defensive movements. For this, we used the concepts of Convex Hull and Voronoi Diagrams, which we learned about in the lecture. Our usage is based on specific in-game situations. We selected the scenes based on what we saw in the match videos.

The tracking data is not perfect. Therefore, some visual artifacts could appear. For example the ball might not be exactly inside the goal or players may be missing during set pieces like corners.

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here:

England vs. Sweden (5th April 2024)

5574528_goal1_convex_hull

5574528_goal1_voronoi

In this scene, we can see that England’s defensive shape is very compact in a small area (Convex Hull). However, the back line is very focused on the ball. As shown in the Voronoi Diagram, this leaves Sweden with access to important areas in the box on England’s right-hand side that have a high xG value (Distribution and Timing of Goals). These open spaces can be used e ectively, and in this case, Sweden scores a goal.

England vs. France (31st May 2024) - Goal 2

5574545_goal2_convex_hull

5574545_goal_01-07-52_goal2

During this corner situation, England is extremely compact, with all players positioned inside their own box. This leaves the area just outside the box open, giving the French player Kenza Dali too much time and space for a cross or a long-distance shot. England tries to create an overload in the box but forgets to cover the danger zone outside. Also, the defense shifts very slowly, which often cancels out the o side line and makes it easier for attackers to get in behind.

England vs. Germany (25th October 2024) - Goal 2

5660057_goal2_convex_hull

5660057_goal_00-10-57_goal2

Here, the Convex Hull shows that England is compact in the center of the pitch. But the distance to Germany’s number 15 on the right wing is too big. Again, England shifts together as a group but stays very focused on the ball. This leaves a lot of space on the wing, which Germany uses well and scores.

England vs. Germany (25th October 2024) - Goal 3

5660057_goal3_convex_hull

5660057_goal_00-28-13_goal3

For Germany’s third goal, England’s Convex Hull almost overlaps with Germany’s. Still, the German winger on the right side is left with too much space. The English full-back can’t react fast enough to the through ball because of the large distance to the winger. The Voronoi Diagram also shows this gap clearly.

Attacking Recommendations

Since England’s defensive line shifts very strongly towards the ball, it’s a good idea to switch play quickly to the other wing. The winger on the far side often has a lot of space. Quick switches force England to re-organize and can lead to short-term gaps in their structure. On the ball side, England is very compact and hard to break down. But this small Convex Hull shape has weaknesses when switching sides. This can also be used against slower defenders like Lucy Bronze. A good attacking strategy is to play through balls into the space behind the back line.

PPDA

You can find our corresponding code snippet and further details here: $2618

ppda_england

ppda_england_dual_axis_not_ranked

ppda_all_teams

England’s PPDA values are in the midfield range compared to other teams, with an average of 5.25. Their ball possession stats are among the top ten. When looking at individual matches, the PPDA values only slightly correlate with possession percentages. For example, in the game against Sweden, England had 62.3% possession and a very low PPDA of 2.77, meaning they defended aggressively. But in other games, like the second leg against Belgium, England also had a high possession rate of 63.9% but a much higher PPDA of 5.64, meaning they were less aggressive in defense.

The PPDA numbers in the two games against France are particularly interesting. The level of defensive aggression was almost the same in both matches, even though England’s possession dropped by more than 10% in the second game.

We also can’t say that England’s defensive aggression depends on the strength of the opponent. Against South Africa, a team weaker than England in terms of play, the PPDA was relatively high. But against Switzerland, which is also considered weaker, the PPDA was low.

So overall, we can’t make a general conclusion. England’s defensive aggression seems to be very individually adapted to each opponent.

Distribution & Timing of conceded Goals

Code Repository

This snippets that were used for creating the graphics: ($2256)

Match-by-Match Shot Maps and Tactical Commentary

USA vs England (0–0) 30.11.2024

The USA posed a consistent threat from central areas inside the box. England’s compact defensive shape forced predictable attempts and successfully denied any breakthrough. The clean sheet reflects effective positioning and goalkeeping under sustained pressure.

England vs Switzerland (1–0) 3.12.2024

Switzerland were limited to long-range and low-quality attempts. England's block pushed attacks away from the 6-yard box, reducing the threat despite multiple shot attempts.

England vs Portugal (1–1) 21.2.2025

Portugal capitalized on a lapse down England's right and scored from close range. Most attempts were speculative, but a single untracked runner punished the defense.

England vs Sweden (1–1) 5.4.2024

Sweden produced attacks from various zones, including the left and central midfield. The goal exposed England’s vulnerability to crosses and runs from wide areas.

England vs France (1–2) 31.5.2024

France broke through England’s back line with two goals from central spaces. Compactness broke down under pressure, with unchallenged finishes inside the box.

France vs England (1–2) 6.6.2024

Despite conceding numerous shots, England restricted France to mostly low-xG efforts. Improved midfield coverage and better timing in defensive transitions contributed to the win.

Combined Shot Map of All Attempts Faced

Combined Shot Map

This heatmap combines all shot locations faced by England, revealing dense clusters between the penalty spot and the 6-yard box — the most dangerous scoring zone. It also confirms England’s struggle to prevent access to central areas.

Tactical Analysis: Defensive Patterns and Key Zones

Main Vulnerabilities

Central Zone (6–12 Yards)

  • England concedes high shot volume in this zone.
  • Cut-backs and late runs into the box often go untracked.
  • Defensive reaction time and spacing need improvement.

Right Defensive Flank

  • England is often exposed on the right when the full-back is caught high.
  • Diagonal switches and wide overloads exploit this gap.

Top of the Box

  • Opponents take several shots from just outside the box due to second-ball wins.
  • England needs better pressure and recovery in these moments.

Defensive Strengths

  • Wide Channel Protection: Opponents rarely create clear chances from wide angles or near the byline.
  • Long Shot Suppression: The midfield limits space for long-range efforts.
  • Structure Under Pressure: England handles extended defensive sequences reasonably well outside the box.

Shot Quality & xG Analysis

xG-Weighted Shot Map

xG Shot Map

Bubble sizes reflect xG value. Most opponent shots are taken from central areas, reinforcing the heatmap. While extreme high-xG chances are rare, England concedes enough medium-xG attempts to face regular danger.

xG Distribution

xG Histogram

  • Most shots have low xG values (< 0.1), suggesting effective shot suppression.
  • Occasional spikes above 0.4 reflect key breakdowns in coverage.
  • The team is solid overall but vulnerable to isolated high-quality attempts.

xG Summary Table

Category Observation
Average xG per shot Low (~0.08–0.12)
High-xG chances Infrequent but impactful (> 0.4 xG)
Danger zones Central area between 6–12 yards
Long-range attempts Well-contained

Defensive Summary Overview

England Defensive Summary

England vs All Nations – Defensive Summary

England faces a high number of shots per game compared to other nations but limits many of them to lower-quality chances. The proportion of shots on target is relatively low given the total volume, suggesting defensive structure reduces threat. However, both goals conceded and xG conceded are slightly above average, indicating room for improvement in preventing high-quality chances and finishing defensive sequences more effectively.

Recommendations to Exploit England’s Defense

  1. Target Central Zones Inside the Box

    • Create movement between England’s center-backs to disrupt spacing.
    • Use late runs and cut-backs to find space between 6–12 yards.

  2. Attack the Right Defensive Flank

    • Overload England’s right side when the full-back pushes forward.
    • Use diagonal switches and quick 1–2 combinations to isolate the channel.

  3. Capitalize on Second Balls

    • Position midfielders just outside the box to retrieve clearances.
    • Take quick, low shots from rebounds or loose balls around the penalty arc.

  4. Break Through the Midfield Block

    • Use fast transitions before England’s midfield shape is restored.
    • Play vertically through the lines to bypass pressure and draw defenders out.

Summary

England’s defensive performance reveals a pattern of vulnerability in central zones just outside the 6-yard box, where opponents frequently generate high-quality chances. While they concede a high number of shots overall, most attempts are low in expected goals (xG), highlighting effective suppression of long-range efforts. However, heatmaps and match-specific shot maps consistently show that England struggles to prevent cut-backs, rebounds, and late runs into the box — particularly down the right defensive flank. The xG distribution confirms this, with a few dangerous spikes suggesting isolated but impactful lapses in coverage. Despite these weaknesses, England maintains structural discipline in wide areas and midfield pressure, keeping many threats manageable — though opponents exploiting these patterns can find key scoring opportunities.

Conclusion

England’s defense is built on a strong foundation of experience, cohesion, and individual duel-winning ability. This is especially clear on their right side from the English goalkeeper’s view, where players like Bronze and Mead consistently perform at a high level. However, despite these strengths, there are several tactical and structural weaknesses that opponents can take advantage of with the right approach.

The defensive shape England uses tends to be reactive rather than proactive. When forced into unfamiliar formations, such as a back three, the team’s coordination starts to break down. This is especially noticeable early in matches when high pressing and quick transitions after winning the ball can disrupt their setup before it stabilizes.

Aerial weakness is another problem, particularly on the right side and in central midfield (seen from the England's goalkeepers perspective). Players like Greenwood, Walsh, and Russo often come up short in aerial duels. As fatigue sets in during the second half, this vulnerability becomes even more pronounced, making England more susceptible to second-ball pressure and fast-paced attacks.

Positionally, England struggles most through the central and right channels when defending against line-breaking passes from the opposition. These kinds of attacks, when built zone by zone without unnecessary switches, often lead to chances just outside the goal area. In these moments, England has trouble tracking late runs and dealing with cut-backs effectively.

Data on defensive duels supports these observations. England loses control more often through the center and on the left wing (seen from the England's goalkeepers perspective). While the right side remains solid and should be avoided, the left-back channel is frequently overworked and commits fouls, especially around halftime and late in the game.

To take advantage of these weaknesses, opponents should:

  • Force England into reactive shape changes by using flexible formations and movement
  • Target aerial duels and second-ball opportunities in central midfield and on the left side from the goalkeeper’s perspective
  • Avoid right-sided attacks where England is strongest from the goalkeeper’s perspective
  • Press high and attack quickly after winning the ball to hit the flanks before England’s shape is restored
  • Keep the tempo high leading into halftime and during the final twenty minutes to increase the chances of fatigue and fouls
  • Build zone-based attacks through the center and left side for more consistent penetration and higher quality chances from the goalkeeper’s view
  • Use short-long passing combinations to cover ground quickly and catch England off guard. For example, a long forward ball into a striker followed by a quick layoff to a supporting player arriving from behind can create dangerous situations and disrupt England’s defensive line
  • Avoid slow lateral ball movement, which is easier for England’s defense to track and adjust to

By focusing on these tactical and timing-based strategies, opponents can unlock a defensive unit that may appear solid on the surface but has clear weaknesses when put under the right kind of pressure.

Match Videos Women's Euro 2025 Qualifier

England v Sweden - Women's Euro 2025 Qualifier (05.04.2024)

Republic of Ireland v England - Women''s Euro 2025 Qualifier (09.04.24)

England v France - Women's Euro 2025 Qualifier (31.05.2024)

France v England - Women's Euro 2025 Qualifier (04.06.2024)

England v Republic of Ireland - Women's Euro 2025 Qualifier (12.07.24)

Sweden v England- Women's Euro 2025 Qualifier (16.07.24)